Hi...I'm new to this board and am looking to continue a discussion that i began several years ago on another forum. It concerns the concept of Intelligent Design. Not sure if most Miles Citians care one way or 'tuther but I've come across a few things that seem to be pretty clear ....and am just wondering if anyone else has any interest.

To start off with Intelligent Design has to do with ultimate origins and suggests that the complexity of the natural world is proof of an Intelligent DesignER of reality as opposed to being "just is"...what say anyone?

The earth is flat.

And the Sun revolves around the earth.

Frank,

Remind me please, is the intellegence issue with the designer or the designed?

Thanks.

I reject the concept of intelligent design particularly being taught in a public school system...It is based on religious theory and parts of the bible and has no place in a public place of learning...Just regular old science should be taught..If you wish to teach intelligent design, teach it in your churches..IMO

<Remind me please, is the intellegence issue with the designer or the designed?>

Hi Mark...thanks for responding. The question has to do with the the possible "causes" of the natural world. In this case the question we are asking is..."Is it possible for things like...the genome, body systems, the mind, morals, etc to come about by accident or not?" If these things did NOT come about by random events...then that leaves only one other possiblity. SomeTHING has brought these things into being....and if so that "Being' obviously has intelligence of unfathomable proportions.(at least thats the theory)

Are you personally familiar with the cosmological, ontological and teleological arguments for the universe being created?

<The earth is flat.>

I don't think so. Its only Custer County and Death Valley that seems to have that problem.

<And the Sun revolves around the earth.>

It used to alright...but Copernicus had to up'n spoil it all.

Frank,

My sympathies to you re. your brother Richard.

FH

I've never understood why people who are proponents of Intelligent Design reject the concept that evolution is a system that exists but was created by this "being" they would like to attribute intelligent design too.

When you look at the science of how things have come to be, it is soo overly complicated we as a species have yet to even come close to figuring it all out. That seems like a pretty ingenius system and perfectly plausible that if a "God" existed; the process of evolution was their creation.

http://www.time.com/time/...65,00.html

and

http://www.nytimes.com/20...ef=science


ABC

[This message has been edited by ABC (edited 10/17/2008).]

<I've never understood why people who are proponents of Intelligent Design reject the concept that evolution is a system that exists but was created by this "being" they would like to attribute intelligent design too.>

That bothered me too for quite a while. The question you are focusing on is "Why couldn't God have used evolution in His creation event?" Its quite simple really.

1.Evolution at its most foundational level is BASED upon purposeless, random, chaos as the driving cause of all reality. God....at least the God of sacred scripture has never left ANYTHING to chance. Nothing ever occurs by chance in a univese where God is truly soverign. To put it simply...if there is one maverick molecule running around this reality that God has no control of...then we are not talking about the Creator at all. If he really HAS created...then all the rest of it including you and me are finite,dependent and derived.

2. If the Book means anything it says that He created all things AFTER THIER OWN KIND...as opposed to creating a spark of life and then it turned into algae, beetles, camels and such.

<When you look at the science of how things have come to be, it is soo overly complicated we as a species have yet to even come close to figuring it all out.>

I don't think we are expected to have it all figured out. We do not have to know everything before we can know for sure that there is a Creator. I have come to see that for most of us...it is not a matter of there being a lack of information..rather we are not partial to what we DO know.

Good one Hardy ; -)

<Frank,

My sympathies to you re. your brother Richard.

FH>

Thanks... Yes Richard and i have had our differences, thats for sure.

1.Evolution at its most foundational level is BASED upon purposeless, random, chaos as the driving cause of all reality.

I think this would be completely within the escope of any being powerful enough to generate the universe and all its divergent life.

Chaos to humans != chaos to a Divine, all powerful entity.

This is of course, simply my personal opinion on the matter.

<<.Evolution at its most foundational level is BASED upon purposeless, random, chaos as the driving cause of all reality.

I think this would be completely within the escope of any being powerful enough to generate the universe and all its divergent life.>



I don't think so. If the defintions of Creator and creation hold...then it is an either/or situation. The existence of one rules out the other...at least following the rules of logical discourse. If logic is not valued or at least allowed to come into play here then yes of course then its all up for grabs. But...i'm talking about using the data gathered by all the scientific investigation and applying that to what we actually observe.

<Chaos to humans != chaos to a Divine, all powerful entity.>

What does that mean? What evidence is there that chaos can "cause" anything other than more chaos? Do explosions EVER produce organization? Has Anything ever occured "by" chance, that is...with no particular cause?

<This is of course, simply my personal opinion on the matter.>

Thats what I am trying to get beyond...opinions. Its the evidence that we ought to be accepting or rejecting. I think perhaps I am boring you though, forgive me.

Intelligent design and creationism and the world being carried on the back of a turtle are not science. They are religion. They are not subject to testing, theorem, replicability, or failure. Science is subject to all these things.

As a religious topic, intelligent design can and should be argued by theologists. As science, not so much.

Theology and Science can rarely be discussed from one party to the other in any level that the other cares to understand.

Intellegent design is a wonderfully fascinating religious idea.

There is no scientific motivation or application to even consider it.

If you think intellegent design has anything to do with intellegence, IMO you are fooling yourself. Intellegent design is a faith issue.

Oh, don't let me forget...

Global warming is a farce.

Polar bears were meant to be aquatic.

Drill baby drill.

Have I hit enough hot button issues yet?

Ooh, what about abortion?

Thank god my house is stocked with guns to scare off the crazies...



Edited-Mark's third cousin, twice removed, amicably seperated.

And Joe the plumber isn't even licensed.

"Thats what I am trying to get beyond...opinions. Its the evidence that we ought to be accepting or rejecting. I think perhaps I am boring you though, forgive me."

This would be the topic of a theological or philisophical nature. Opinion is all a person has to come from in terms of a discussion.

Speaking from a purely "Evidence-based" perspective then the notion of Intelligent Design is ridiculous because it lacks a single shred of evidence from which to base an argument/position.

All ideas supporting Intelligent Design are conjecture.

<,Intelligent design and creationism and the world being carried on the back of a turtle are not science.>

Amazing isn't it? Proponents both sides of the question have full access to the same information...and come to such divergent worldviews, i mean.

<They are religion.>

Lots of things are religious...no doubt about that....but ID is anything but religous. All it asks is for us is to use reason and logic to examine the reality we inhabit. There is no "God did it" as an explanation for any natural phenomenon in ID.

Mr Richard Dawkins himself (as vehement an atheist as you will find) states in his diatribe against ID that ..."biology is the study of things that appear to be designed...but are really not...."

Question: If things at least "appear" to be designed...shouldn't we ought to be good scientists and admit that it bears further investigation...since OBSERVATION is one of the very tools of science....instead of just saying.."no way"?? Seems to me the ones claiming to rely on nothing but science...have kind of failed to see the forest for the trees here. To wit:...if it looks like a duck...walks like a...then just maybe...eh?

Anyone can say "There is no evidence for God"...thats easy.
In fact...i would challenge you to begin with no apriori assumptions, and using only the scientific method...work through what is obvious about how things could be as they are.. You might be surpised how clear the answers can be. You say you value science...thats good....thats a good start. Perhaps we should review just what IS clear to both sides before we make up our minds which side is full of mantras...and which side describes real states of affairs.

I certainly do not claim to have all the answers...but i do have a few....and so do you if we can only look calmly at how there could be anything here right now....instead of nothing at all.

"Question: If things at least "appear" to be designed...shouldn't we ought to be good scientists and admit that it bears further investigation...since OBSERVATION is one of the very tools of science....instead of just saying.."no way"??"

The theory of evolution, and it's counter-arguments to ID is derived from thousands of years of scientific observations.

That's how the whole "no way" argument came to be. Science wasn't ignored in coming to the conclusion that ID is probably not correct. It was the attention to science that brought about the information that ID tries to go against.

<Theology and Science can rarely be discussed from one party to the other in any level that the other cares to understand.>

Is that set in stone? Why not?

<Intellegent design is a wonderfully fascinating religious idea.>

Can you explain why it is any more religous than say...evolution?

<There is no scientific motivation or application to even consider it.>

Why would you say a thing like that? What could possibly be more important for an individual to ever understand than the source of his very being???? Perhaps you might fear what you would find??

<If you think intellegent design has anything to do with intellegence, IMO you are fooling yourself.>

How so? Consider an example. If we could both agree that some of mans' most brilliant accomplishments (as a result of decades and decades of intensive scientific endeavor)...are the product of NOTHING BUT intelligent design (space shuttles and space flight come to mind)...where are our heads when we look at the simplist living cell...which is at least 10 thousand times more complex than anything man has put his hand and head to. Could a space shuttle design itself...or "evolve"???? How much effort would it take you to design a human hand that cold grow calluses for playing the guitar? Simple you say? Now...whos fooling who?


<Intellegent design is a faith issue.>>

Yes and no. All facts are faith based. Yes i have a certain amount of faith in lots of things...but that faith HAS to be based upon a reasonable assumption. Evolution is also based upon faith....more religious than not, however.


Another quick example of scientific "faith"....If I walk out over the Fort Keough hills north of the river as I often did as a boy...I might possibly come across a piece of rock that has a peculiar shape that attracts my attention. It may have the general shape of a tree mor maybe a boot...I pick it up and examine it and see that it is nothing more than a naturally worn rock or sandstone marble. However...when i come across an arrowhead I know immediately that this peice of real estate did not get its shape from mere random forces of nature. It is clear to all that this piece of rock...was designed...for a purpose. Note: The orginal designer is nowhere to be found...but we all KNOW that there is only one way for that arrowhead to be real. No designer...no arrowhead..ever. Now just continue on up the scale of complexity and tell me a human eye could design itself...given any amount of time. Hows your level of credulity getting along?

See the connection between faith and reason here? I don't see the designer but i know there IS one.....BASED upon what i know of simple primitive tools.

<All ideas supporting Intelligent Design are conjecture.>

All you say? All is a pretty inclusive quantity. Care to elaborate? 2 or three examples would really liven up our discussion.

<The theory of evolution, and it's counter-arguments to ID is derived from thousands of years of scientific observations.>

Since I assume we are talking Darwin here....I think you missed the time frame by at least 1800 years.

Can you explain what you think evolution affirms?

What could ever cause one form of life to turn into another? Follow up, if you can, with a couple examples of any known evolving that all evolutionists agree on.

Can you explain the difference between miro and macro evolution?

So the belief of anything requires credulity? Your beliefs are incredulous to me. If I can't prove it, then God must have done it? Lets take another track here. If you can't prove it, then it didn't happen?
Lets look at it this way. Tell me that an insurance company can actually say in court..........It was an act of God............without having to prove the existence of this God? Neither you nor I can prove this God exists, so how can an insurance company use this as an actual reason for not paying a claim? Yet they do it all day long. So far beyond belief that it is actually stupid. Disagree? Tell me how.
Don't even tell me that events beyond there control are an "act of God" Just prove to me, somehow, that these events are actually an act of God. Any proof. Just a little. No beliefs, no faith, no magic at all. Take your time. Debate the thought for a few months, and report back to me with your regrets.
Your God is supposed to be all forgiving, and all knowing. That God could have prevented 9 - 11 couldn't he? Was that just a lesson to the rest of us that didn't die? Not that forgiving? For me either. We can discuss the foils of man through history, and your God should have prevented all of them. Because innocent man has suffered from your Gods inaction forever.
I will never trash any man's religion. If you find solace there, then good for you. But the idea that you can push this farce on the rest of us is just stupid. Just a little proof is all I ask. Any proof is good. I am waiting. Prove something to me. Good luck.

The fact that you pulled out the "Eye Argument" tells me a whole lot about the level of time and research you've put in on this subject. I however cannot sleep so will go ahead and participate in this conversation.


No designer...no arrowhead..ever. Now just continue on up the scale of complexity and tell me a human eye could design itself...given any amount of time. Hows your level of credulity getting along?

"The human eye is constructed upon the foundation of an almost incredible error: The retina has been put together backwards! Unlike the retinas of octopuses and squids, in which the light-gathering cells are aimed forward, toward the source of incoming light, the photoreceptor cells (the so called rods and cones) of the human retina are aimed backward, away from the light source. Worse yet, the nerve fibers which must carry signals from the retina to the brain must pass in front of the receptor cells, partially impeding the penetration of light to the receptors. Only a blasphemer would attribute such a situation to divine design"
http://www.2think.org/eye.shtml

There is overwhelming scientific evidence supporting the several stages that led to the development of the modern "eye". Of course you'd actually have to read that information...
The wiki-page has lots of links to scientific sources.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w...of_the_eye


All you say? All is a pretty inclusive quantity. Care to elaborate? 2 or three examples would really liven up our discussion.

1: The primpary proponents of ID put forward the assumption that the "designer" is the Christian God. While it is indisputable that there is much history revolving around the Christian church, all aspect of the divine nature of God or Christ are conjecture.
2. The role of the designer could easily be replaced by "Aliens" or the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" and it doesn't change the intent or weight of the ID argument. The fact you can replace that variable with any random object and the argument doesn't change it's *logical* value means it is a framework of guesses; i.e. conjecture.
3. Intelligent Design fails the scientific method test 100% of the time. This indicates it is conjecture.

Since I assume we are talking Darwin here....I think you missed the time frame by at least 1800 years.

Uh no. I'm talking about evolution. Darwin didn't invent evolution just like Newton didn't "invent" gravity. I'll relent and agree these observations were scientific in nature for 300 years or so. Darwin receives most of the credit but people were discussing concepts like evolution before he came along.

What could ever cause one form of life to turn into another? Follow up, if you can, with a couple examples of any known evolving that all evolutionists agree on.


That's easy. Tons of experiments have been done with rabbits. A group of short-furred rabbits moved to a location that gets really cold will eventually produce a type of rabbit that has unusually long fur. Despite how simple that change is, that rabbit has evolved.

[This message has been edited by J. Dyba (edited 10/18/2008).]

<So the belief of anything requires credulity?>

It sure used to...whats the problem?

<Your beliefs are incredulous to me. If I can't prove it, then God must have done it?>

Its another yes and no. Nothing ever happens by chance. Think abnout that if you will. If that is true then once again I ask...what is the only option left.? It has all been CAUSED to happen...and there has to be an ultimate Causer at the top...or nada....el zippo...ever. Now...there all kinds of secondary causes in progress...but once again without a creator/sustainer...you aint agoin to have any pizza tonight....or any other night. Keeping this simple....for every painting...there HAS to be a PainTER. No Painter...no painting...ever. You know it...i know it...we ALL know it.



<Lets take another track here. If you can't prove it, then it didn't happen?>

I might ask you the same about the existence of God. Just because i can't take you down to Foster Drug and introduce you to him...does that mean he can't exist? Some folks have the idea that if they don't think about him that He can't exist...sort of like us as toddlers when we tried to make our disciplining mother go away by simply closing our eyes. I hope you realize that never worked.


<Neither you nor I can prove this God exists,>

How do you know that? Have you searched the matter?

<I am waiting. Prove something to me. Good luck.>

Ok I will give it a shot...but i have to tell you beforehand that there is something required of you too. Its called...honesty. Anyone can just keep saying "I don't believe that" and think they have won the day. You appear to at least be willing to listen to the argument. I will continue in the next post.

Ok...lets begin with what we DO know and forget any reference to what "might be"...or opinions. With no apriori assumptions from ether side...lets ask a few questions and work through answers we both can agree on...fair enough?

Again...none of us have all the answers...but there are a few truths that ought to be clear to any thinking person.( One caveat here..if you have trouble believng that there even IS such a thing as truth...then this is going to be a waste of time)

Lets begin by asking...not why you or I are here...but rather..how is it that anything at all could possibly be here right now? Have you ever thought about that? What are the possiblities for the cause of reality being...well...real? There are 4 that I can think of...at least at first glance. All that exists is either..

1. an illusion and doesn't really exist at all. (Don't laugh you might be surprised at how often this is suggested!)

2.All has created itself.

3. All that is here is eternal and "self existent"...not needing any beginning.

4. All that is here has been brought into being by a self existent Being.

If you can think of any other "options"...please lay them on the table. I have found that all attempts to add to the above actually fall under one or another of the above.

Now...not wanting to push you in any one direction...you tell me which of the above make any sense at all...and why.

I present option #5:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang


While the specific science behind this theory is hard to understand for most people; if the effort is made to do so it is impossible to not be awestruck by the miracle-like nature of it.


I again put forward that sound science and a theological belief do not have to contradict one another.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster touched the earth with his Noodly Appendage and created all! Science can't test this theory, therefore, it must be true!

<While the specific science behind this theory is hard to understand for most people; if the effort is made to do so it is impossible to not be awestruck by the miracle-like nature of it.>

Miracle like?....sounds a little theological to me!!:-)) What you have just described is option 4...Only we say in the beginning..God created. I have no qualms with our speculating that a big bang occurred that distributed the elements....however if we hold to the scientific laws of motion that state ..."All objects at rest tend to remain at rest...UNLESS ACTED UPON BY AN OUTSIDE CAUSE"....We have every driving reason to believe that somehow...someway..someTHING (the outside cause)...brought the hammer down, struck the march....or whatever senario floats your boat.




<I again put forward that sound science and a theological belief do not have to contradict one another.>

Yes i know what you do..but you have no basis for doing so. You are simply looking for a way out.

<The Flying Spaghetti Monster touched the earth with his Noodly Appendage and created all! Science can't test this theory, therefore, it must be true. >

Is that your best shot? Evolution cannot be tested either. Even computer simulation of the effects of mutations combined with natural selection do not come close. Yes i know you will repeat the mantra that evolution is a fact..but anyone can say that if they do not have to provide evidence. Was hoping for better.

Ok...why don't you tell us all your own idea? Care to pick and option or put forth one of your own...one that has at least some evidence behind it, I mean.

Bottom line, what evolution attempts to get you to swallow is that life can be caused to begin simply by the right combination of mixed elements and perhaps a little heat...and you folks think we believe a myth!

You continue to ignore FACTS I have linked, yet the summation of half your argument is that we are not presenting facts.

You aren't very good at this.

<You continue to ignore FACTS I have linked, yet the summation of half your argument is that we are not presenting facts.>

I'm not ignoring anything. I'm just trying to stay on track. I'm trying to keep with the basic argument of cosomology and you are running away...we can get to so called "problems" with the way God has designed things a little later. I want you folks to admit up front that matter alone cannot produce intelligence and that anything approaching life is far too complex to have accidently happened.



<You aren't very good at this.>

Perhaps...but i try harder....and you wouldn't believe how patient I can be.

If things at least "appear" to be designed...shouldn't we ought to be good scientists and admit that it bears further investigation...since OBSERVATION is one of the very tools of science....instead of just saying.."no way"?? Seems to me the ones claiming to rely on nothing but science...have kind of failed to see the forest for the trees here. To wit:...if it looks like a duck...walks like a...then just maybe...eh?

The problem with this statement is that you assume you know what a duck looks like. Science is in the business of describing the duck, not comparing known ducks with "possible ducks". Science tells us what a duck appears to be. Religion just tells us to believe it's a duck, regardless of what it looks like. I'm not saying that that is a bad thing. I don't think that science and religion has to be exclusive of each other. But I do agree with Amorette that science belongs in the classroom and religion belongs in church.

The problem with ID proponents lies threefold: First, there is no cohesive theory that all ID'ers can agree on. Is the world only 10,000 years old? Can we included the fossil record and carbon dating in ID? Second, most ID'ers propose their theories under the Christian rubric. What about the Hindus' creation theory, or the Bhuddists', or Muslims'? Besides hubris, what makes one more plausible than another? Third, what about the cosmos? How does ID explain or accomodate the vastness and, indeed, purpose of space? Did God just want to boggle our little minds?

It certainly isn't a black and white issue but if you are a believer shouldn't you give God a little credit regarding the incredible brains he gave us and wants us to use? It seems to me that if you ignore science, you are limiting God's gift of intelligence. Isn't that a sin?

gvc's wife

Before we get way afield here...lets continue to make scientific observations about the reality we inhabit.

To wit: If there ever was a time in which not one thing existed...what does logic tell you about what we could expect to be here right now?

Answering this question honestly allows us to see clearly that at least someTHING has the power of self existence. Why so?....because if there ever was a time in which not one thing existed..no space...no time...no matter...and certainly no God...then there could not possibly be anything here right now. Yes it really is that simple......just as the book tells us.

But we know there IS something here for real right now...don't we? C'mon...fess up now. Since that is true...then somehow...someway someTHING with the power to be self existent has had to cause all the rest....or nothing physcial cold possibly...be. Now...this Being may have used an explosion as i said...in that the elements may well have been distributed quickly...the main point is that the distribution was CAUSED. I think one of the main problems we have is that the answer is TOO clear..and being the relativists that most of us are..we don't like that very much. No room to fudge a little here.

J. I hate to get into these arguments because they're based on things nobody truly understands.

But this, from an article you posted above, seems to point out (from ignorance) a design "flaw" in the human eye.

Even though the obstructing layer is microscopically thin, some light is lost from having to pass through the layer of nerve fibers and ganglia and especially the blood vessels that serve them.

Yet just recently it was just recently discovered that those same features described in your article as "flaws" are actually present to serve a critical function.

http://www.theregister.co...1/eye_eye/

The layers in front of the rods and cones act as a diffusing screen. They have a half micron diameter which is roughly the same as the incoming light, so there must be lots of scattering. So we thought, could there be a way round this?

"We put unstained, living tissue on a microscope and focused through the layers. We found lots of light reflecting in synaptic and nerve layers, but with regular patterns of empty holes with no scattering."

The team then built up a cross section of the eye and found that the holes were in fact tubes, running all the way through. They were able to confirm that these were the Müller cells by running tests with lasers.

"Everyone thinks lasers are perfectly parallel, but this is not so," Reichenbach continues. "They do diverge. The Müller cells behave as a lens, and collect all the light without any loss, just like an optical plate."

They go on to talk about how the natural design is so ingenious, they hope to replicate it in their own invention.

"Nature is so clever," Reichenbach says. "This means there is enough room in the eye for all the neurons and synapses and so on, but still the müller cells can capture and transmit as much light as possible."

If the technique could be replicated with optical plates, it could mean engineers would be able to fit more into delicate sensors. "They could include lots of other things - computing elements for example," he adds.

So it seems here, that science is admitting the natural design of the human eye trumped mankind's ability to engineer anything similar. Even better, mankind was ignorant enough to previously ridicule that same design only because they were too ignorant to understand what it really did. Science can only go as far as the scientist.

[This message has been edited by Rick Kuchynka (edited 10/18/2008).]

<The problem with this statement is that you assume you know what a duck looks like. >

Mea culpa. You caught me! Here to fore i had assumed that i did know what a duck looked like. Silly me!




<Science is in the business of describing the duck, not comparing known ducks with "possible ducks".>

Methinks milady is badly mistaken. That is prcisley what science is...Its called ..taxonomy or classification. Classification most certainly DOES entail comparing ducks to things that might not be ducks. Is this a new concept for you?

<Science tells us what a duck appears to be.>

Could you please reread your last two sentences...my head has spun around 4 times trying to make sense of it. How can a duck be verified if you don't do any comparing of similarity and differences????? Sheesh!

<Religion just tells us to believe it's a duck, regardless of what it looks like.>

Yes lots of religion does exactly that...but not Christianity. All Christianity asks of us is to be honest about what we observe. Thats the rub...the being honest.

< I don't think that science and religion has to be exclusive of each other.>

Indeed...they are not. Science MEANS knowledge...all kinds of knowledge...based upon the use of reason (logic), the five senses and our God given mental ability to make sense of it all. We are not practicing "religion" merely because we make observations about how anything at all could be here..

< But I do agree with Amorette that science belongs in the classroom and religion belongs in church.>

That goes without saying....your agreeing with amorette, I mean. The problem is...what passes for science these days!

<The problem with ID proponents lies threefold: First, there is no cohesive theory that all ID'ers can agree on. Is the world only 10,000 years old? Can we included the fossil record and carbon dating in ID? Second, most ID'ers propose their theories under the Christian rubric. What about the Hindus' creation theory, or the Bhuddists', or Muslims'? Besides hubris, what makes one more plausible than another? Third, what about the cosmos? How does ID explain or accomodate the vastness and, indeed, purpose of space?>

You're understanding of what ID is needs a little help. ID does not concern itself with the basic creation concerns of age of the earth and fossils per se. ID has to do with recognition of what requires intelligence as opposed to the possiblity that randomness can cause anything complex at all.

<Did God just want to boggle our little minds?>

well...if we are thinking at all we ought to recognize that reality really is quite mind boggling, thats for sure. Perhaps we are having the ole "not being able to see the forest for the trees" syndrome??

<It certainly isn't a black and white issue>

Of course it is black and white. It isn't our lack of knowlege that is the problem...rather is that we don't like what we really do observe....so we pretend its waaaaaaaay to complicated...hoping that that will pass as an excuse for denying God the worship that is obviously due Him. (Just as an aside here...scripture warns us about trying that ole ploy...but no one appears to be listening here so I wont belabor that point any for now)

< but if you are a believer shouldn't you give God a little credit regarding the incredible brains he gave us and wants us to use?>

Yes...that exactly what i am trying to get you to do....and not just the credit for our brains either...but think of it!.....trees growing from water and CO2, my hands growing from peanut butter and jelly sandwiches and milk (lots of it!), awesome sunsets and beautiful eyes with eyebrows thrown in just for good measure! ...the ability to taste ...and then there is this thing called ..."sex"...what in the world was THAT all about???! I'm tellin ya....its amazing...who could ever think stuff like this up?????!

< It seems to me that if you ignore science, you are limiting God's gift of intelligence.>

Before you can ignore science you must first be aware of what it is.

< Isn't that a sin?>

All ignorance is sin. Mostly the sin of sloth.

My thoughts, in no particular order:

#1. In regards to "Is the world only 10,000 years old?", I think it's been whittled down to only about 6,000 years now. Just ask a creationist.

#2. Carl Sagan. While the original 13 episodes of "Cosmos" are aging, they've been updated and re-syndicated. Also the book he wrote with his wife, converted into the movie named "Contact", has a phrase "So if it's just us... seems like an awful waste of space". If our tiny little brains could possibly comprehend how large the universe is, that quote could be fully understood.

#3. Science Channel. Get cable (if they provide it) or get a satellite dish network that does. It explains a lot.

#4. Philosophy. Many of these questions have been asked, pondered, debated, and delved upon for a very long time -- from Socrates and way before.

#5. Quantum Mechanics. Even Einstein would not believe it and said something like "God does not roll dice", however he has been proven wrong. Each generation keeps getting better at figuring out however much we can figure out.

#6. Multiverse. Theoretical, however, if true, it would explain a lot of things.

#7. Big Bang. Did "God" create it? What caused it? Etc. The concept of "something" versus "nothing" is basically impossible for our brains to comprehend. How can there be nothing?

#8. Consciousness. This is also something impossible for our tiny little pin heads to comprehend. It's like living in a 2 dimensional universe and not realizing there's a 3rd one.

#9. Life. Obviously this universe (or multiverse) has certain rules. How did those rules come about? Is this the infinite minus one universe? Or did God create it? Are we, as in the entire universe, simply a tiny spec in a ham sandwich of something greater?

There are no possible ways to answer all of these questions, however I do know, when someone starts spewing that everything is literal (written by the viewpoints of basically cavemen) and the world is only 6,000 years old -- the discussion stops -- as there is no reason to continue. That's when it turns into religion, if not fanatical religion.

.< I hate to get into these arguments because they're based on things nobody truly understands.>

We ought not be afraid to search for truth though...just because the going can be tough. We do not need to know everything in order to be able to discern fact from fiction. We'd just give up on any search at all if that wre the case. Its only BECAUSE a rational God has made things the way they are that we can even begin to figure out and make use of the physical laws, logic and reason.

<Yet just recently it was just recently discovered that those same features described in your article as "flaws" are actually present to serve a critical function.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/05/01/eye_eye/>

excellent article...have had it tucked away too...just too lazy to bring it out today.



<They go on to talk about how the natural design is so ingenious, they hope to replicate it in their own invention.>

amazing..no?



<So it seems here, that science is admitting the natural design of the human eye trumped mankind's ability to engineer anything similar. Even better, mankind was ignorant enough to previously ridicule that same design only because they were too ignorant to understand what it really did. Science can only go as far as the scientist.>

Same thing can be said for other supposedly "useless" appendages like the tailbone and the appendix.

Some may also object to the fact that our world is filled with diseases, crime, catastrophic storms etc...and wouldn't that prove that God did not plan very well? Thats where we do have to go to the Book to realize that God most certainly DID create everything perfect...but its what man has done with it that has caused our current state of depravity.

Some say order. Others say chaos. There are many examples though that when chaos has been claimed, its often just an excuse for an inability to understand things so complex.

Intelligent Design reminds me of the "Forbidden Zone" in Planet of the Apes. The "religious" in the film didn't want anyone there because existing evidence destroys the precepts of the entire religion. The fundamentalist religious, self imprisoned in a universe no longer than a few thousand years old, fear true science.

I believe in God. I believe God created the universe. I don't believe God is petty, ready to strike anyone down who disagrees with some narrow viewpoint. God did give us free thought. A petty weakling woudn't have done that.

My faith belongs to me and in church. Science belongs in school. For some reason the right wing, heavily influenced by fundamental religion, wants to dumb down America. Fear of the "Forbidden Zone" I guess.

And, Rick - you have that so totally ass-backward I can hardly believe it.

[This message has been edited by Bob Netherton (edited 10/18/2008).]

<1. In regards to "Is the world only 10,000 years old?", I think it's been whittled down to only about 6,000 years now. Just ask a creationist.>

As far as i can see that is still up for grabs. Its amazing how we keep coming back to the relatively short time span for known cultures that existed. The "apeman" and "millions and millions of years" controversy excepted we aint been here all that long.

<#2. Carl Sagan. While the original 13 episodes of "Cosmos" are aging, they've been updated and re-syndicated. Also the book he wrote with his wife, converted into the movie named "Contact", has a phrase "So if it's just us... seems like an awful waste of space". If our tiny little brains could possibly comprehend how large the universe is, that quote could be fully understood.>

Interesting guy, Sagan. Hardly missed an episode of the "Blue marble" as a kid. I guess you could say he is the one who convinced me that being articulate, witty and engaging...does not garantee honesty. I remember how profound he could sound to me as he explained that our origins were really no mystery at all. Do you remember what his explanation for the universe was? He didn't blink an eye when he said that space + time + chance = everything. How profound that is to a high school freshman!! It took me a long time to see what a foolish statment that was. I guess thats why I'm not awed just because a "scientist" makes a pronouncement. Nothing like a very brilliant person making a very stupid assessment....to quell a young persons love of science. As Rick says...science is limited by the scientist....or at least should be.

<#3. Science Channel. Get cable (if they provide it) or get a satellite dish network that does. It explains a lot.>

Be critical of what comes out of PBS and discvery though...they can get kind of wild. Speculation is often thought of as that way 'tis.

<#4. Philosophy. Many of these questions have been asked, pondered, debated, and delved upon for a very long time -- from Socrates and way before.>

Yes...and we ought not to dismiss them because we think we have improved a lot on them either. There is a reason why these men including the church fathers were considered learned.

<#5. Quantum Mechanics. Even Einstein would not believe it and said something like "God does not roll dice", however he has been proven wrong. Each generation keeps getting better at figuring out however much we can figure out.>

We have to be careful about giving QM more that its due. I often hear secularists suggest that QM has shown that we can get something from nothing (therefor negating the need of a Creator)..but of course it has shown nothing of the kind. Am willing to go into that with anyone if the need arises.

<#6. Multiverse. Theoretical, however, if true, it would explain a lot of things.>

I stay away from pure speculation. It has its place for sure...but once you begin there is no end. There is no need for Phd's to understand the basics. He meant it to be that way. Logic and reason will carry all of us, 4th grader to Phd, as far as we need to go.

<#7. Big Bang. Did "God" create it? What caused it? Etc. The concept of "something" verses "nothing" is basically impossible for our brains to comprehend. How can there be nothing?>

Thats the whole point. There is no such "thing" as nothing. Since we know that at least WE are real and do exist (even if all else happens to be illusory) that proves that there never could be a time in which absolute nothing was the state of affairs. ...and that leads to proving that at least someTHING is eternal. Simple, huh?

<#8. Consciousness. This is also something impossible for our tiny little pin heads to comprehend. It's like living in a 2 dimensional universe and not realizing there's a 3rd one.>

True..and just try figuring how thoughts could be caused silicon and carbon or some such as opposed to a purposeful Creator granting such priviledge as being able to communicate in ANY fashion!!

<#9. Life. Obviously this universe (or multiverse) has certain rules. How did those rules come about? Is this the infinite minus one universe? Or did God create it? Are we, as in the entire universe, simply a tiny spec in a ham sandwich of something greater?>

Ultimately there are only 2 options for reality. Either it was created or it was not. All the data we have points to purposeful planning (Which ID is trying to show can ONLY come from intelligence).....AND accountability....which ought to drive us to know the character of this Being who has condescended to to allow us to get out of bed tomorrow morning...well...some of us anyway.

<There are no possible ways to answer all of these questions, however I do know, when someone starts spewing that everything is literal (written by the viewpoints of basically cavemen) and the world is only 6,000 years old -- the discussion stops -- as there is no reason to continue. That's when it turns into religion, if not fanatical religion.>

I agree and I don't put in a lot of effort debating that stuff. As far as six day creation goes...thats what He SAID He did...and I see nothing overwhelming in the data to deny that....but what I need to know more than that stuff is His character and what He might think of me...Is he loving?..Is He cantankerous?...does it matter how I live my life? etc.

Perhaps the real purpose of science is to divine the true nature of God. In any event, I don't want creationism taught as science in my daughter's school.


gvc's wife

<Some say order. Others say chaos. There are many examples though that when chaos has been claimed, its often just an excuse for an inability to understand things so complex.>

Saying things has always been the easy part. One thing is obvious though. Not one event has ever happened "by" chance. Chance can't do anything...because it ISN'T anything other than a word. It has no being so it can't "do" or cause anything. As Hume explains..."chance is nothing more than our
ignorance of real causes"...and i think that is what you were trying to say.

To drive this point home..think of the ole coin toss. What part does chance play in the outcome of the flip? Absolutely none. We like to SAY that there is a 50/50 "chance" of coming up either heads or coming up tails. But...just because we do not take the time to calculate all the physical parameters associated with the actual flip (pressure of the thumb on the coin, air density, trajectory of arc etc) we CALL it chance...but in reality chance had no effect on the flip whatsoever. This is a critical point when discussing "possiblities" for origins.

It's 6pm. Time to watch some "craziness" on PBS in the form of Lawrence Welk. Yeah. Frank. PBS. Real crazy. Very typical. A network broadcasts objective science and they are labeled crazy. Back to the forbidden zone (PBS) for me.

<I believe in God.>

WE all do....from the pervert to pope. Its the believing..HIM that causes all the problems.

< I believe God created the universe.>

Can you articulate why you think God created the universe?

< I don't believe God is petty, ready to strike anyone down who disagrees with some narrow viewpoint.>

REgardless of narrowness of point....Do you think truth matters to Him?

< God did give us free thought.>

I think you mean "free will"? ...and if so then the answer is yes and no.

< A petty weakling woudn't have done that.>


Good observation.

<Perhaps the real purpose of science is to divine the true nature of God. >
Perhaps that is true...after all, science is simply thinking God's thoughts after Him..that is..discovering how he put it together.

<In any event, I don't want creationism taught as science in my daughter's school.>

so...even if its true you don't want your daughter partaking of it?...condolences to you both then. This is what we are up against today folks..people who readily see truth but deny it has any meaning for them personally. This is "Alice in Wonderland" thinking with a vengence.

<It's 6pm. Time to watch some "craziness" on PBS in the form of Lawrence Welk.>

Geeze.... life is getting out of hand in the ole cowtown tonight!
I'm ready for more Dave and Ella Revines and the laughing teeth.

< A network broadcasts objective science and they are labeled crazy.>

Who told you it was objective?
No...not crazy.....lets just say we need to avoid just soaking up whatever attenbourough says as if it were gospel. Brilliant men are not above falling asleep at the switch every now and then.

Maybe 'our' vison of God is really an alien (to us) from another planet that: 1) Eliminated the dinosaurs 2) Ended the Ice Age 3) Sparked life (as we know it)

Wow! Maybe Science Fiction is the right answer! Faith in something bigger, smarter, stronger, etc is just that. Faith.

What the heck...lets shoot for an even 50. Back to matt for todays finale...


<Your God is supposed to be all forgiving, and all knowing.>

Who told you that? There is no requirement on God's part to love rebellious creatures. Mercy by defintion is never owed. The only thing God owes us is...justice...but I'd be careful about demanding it. He has been known to give people what they ask for....and from what I read none of 'em were all that happy about the result. Yes he is "all knowing" since He is the one ultimately responsible for every breath we have been allowed to take....as well as every hurricane and holocaust. Knowing that ought to dry up the smirks and sarcasm...but usually doesn't.




<That God could have prevented 9 - 11 couldn't he?>

Of course, He could have. He can stop the world if He chooses. Its His world and he can run it like He chooses.

< Was that just a lesson to the rest of us that didn't die?>

Not sure....its possible...actually thats not an unresonable thought given the current state of depravity we are in. Actually I wonder why He deoesn;t allow a few nukes to slip past the borders and take out a few million? We seem to seek
God when tragedy strikes (notice all the "God bless America" stickers right after 911? Wonder if these same "religous" folk went back to trying to kick Him out of public places like schools etc and killing our unborn again as soon as they felt safe again. Think Maybe?

< Not that forgiving? For me either.>

REeally? have you really thought about it? Seems to me if you've got the time to be on these forums...you can't be in too dire a shape. Many would probably give a lot to be in your shoes. Lets see now....God has given you all that you have and kept a lot of harm at bay (that you are probably not even aware of)....and you have shown your greatfulness by thanking Him continually...right?

< We can discuss the foils of man through history, and your God should have prevented all of them.>

No sir, you have a misprint in your sentence. There are no "shoulds" or "oughts" to God. Yes he COULD have done all kinds of things throughout world history. He makes no mistakes...it all goes down exactly as He ordains it to. Again....we are all sinners and if we get the justice that is our due then it is WE who are history.

< Because innocent man has suffered from your Gods inaction forever.>

Show me an innocent man. Are you one of those "few good men?"

<I will never trash any man's religion.>

Thats too bad....Many neeed to be trashed...and severly so. Islam is one that comes to mind.

< If you find solace there, then good for you.>

no you've missed the boat on that one. God did not send His Son to make us happy. He came to provide a way for us to be forgiven.

<But the idea that you can push this farce on the rest of us is just stupid.>

I push nothing on no one. You are free to go your way...nothing is restraining you...so you can stop crying in your beer.

< Just a little proof is all I ask.>

You have always had more proof right before your eyes that anyone deserves. Hopefully this forum will be a wake up call cuz you really do need to get crackin, bud.

<Any proof is good.>
Does that proof have to make you happy?

< I am waiting. Prove something to me.>
I don;t think so.. Proof is the last thing you are seeking....at least for right now. hopefully that will change. Just remember...when the author walks onstage...the play is over...forever.


<Good luck.> I already went over that. There is no such thing as "luck". No one needs "luck". The only thing any pagan needs is to admit what he knows to be true.....the rest is a piece of cake.

Godspeed all....

so...even if its true you don't want your daughter partaking of it?...condolences to you both then. This is what we are up against today folks..people who readily see truth but deny it has any meaning for them personally. This is "Alice in Wonderland" thinking with a vengence

Actually, Frank, that isn't what I said. I don't want my daughter learning in school that God created the universe. That is not the place for promoting a deity-based belief system. (She gets that in Sunday school.) It is the place to learn about the mechanics of our existence. Yeah, yeah, now you'll say something about God is the ultimate mechanic. Look, it may or may not be true that God is the designer of our world. I have taken various views at different times in my life and what I believe now, frankly, is none of your business. But I don't begin to know what the truth is and, despite your protests to the contrary, neither can you. No one, except perhaps God, can know what the truth is. Your "I am, therefore God is" argument fails logic on many levels.


Some may also object to the fact that our world is filled with diseases, crime, catastrophic storms etc...and wouldn't that prove that God did not plan very well? Thats where we do have to go to the Book to realize that God most certainly DID create everything perfect.

Going to the Book? You are begging the question, Frank. You have to already believe that God exists and that the Book is divinely inspired by God in order to use it as the proof of God's perfection. You are trying to prove God exists by assuming there is God!

And just exactly what Book are you talking about? The Bible, the Torah, the Koran, The Book of Mormon? They are very different from each other and present different versions of God. Which is the truth? The Book of Mormon says that Jesus came to North America. Is this your truth also? This is an argument without a resolution, Frank. Thanks for the discussion, though. It's been very interesting.

gvc's wife

Frank. Do you think the Noah's Ark story happened just as depicted in the Old Testament? Adam and Eve? Job?

< But I don't begin to know what the truth is>

Why don't you? Do you think we have to know everything before we can know anything for sure?

< neither can you.>

...and I've said as much several times.


< No one, except perhaps God, can know what the truth is.>
nonesense. That just an excuse to not have to look.


<Your "I am, therefore God is" argument fails logic on many levels.>

Don't recall ever using that argument. I've tried to be careful and give examples as we go. All that I am trying illustrate by asking you to verify that you exist is to show clearly that you DO know truth. That has nothing to do with the existence of God

<Going to the Book? You are begging the question, Frank. You have to already believe that God exists and that the Book is divinely inspired by God in order to use it as the proof of God's perfection. You are trying to prove God exists by assuming there is God!>

Yes that is true. You are correct. If we are not sure that a Creator exists..then debating what He has or has not done is a waste of time. I wrongly assumed to much on your part.

<And just exactly what Book are you talking about? The Bible, the Torah, the Koran, The Book of Mormon? They are very different from each other and present different versions of God. Which is the truth?>

Again...that is for future discussions. We are not there yet. All i am really after with my assertions concerning ID is that "A" Creator is obvious. Hope you will stay tuned....

<Frank. Do you think the Noah's Ark story happened just as depicted in the Old Testament? Adam and Eve? Job?>

For the most part...yes. The accounts in scripture are obviously very abreviated as to the actual events....but the main ideas ...a global flood and folks riding the storm out in an ark...Adam and Eve bringing on the fall and Jonah being swallowed by a whale....the sufffering of Job etc...are all well within the realm of physical possibility. None of these events are all that "impossible". If the Book talked about one cell animals turning into man over millions of years...THEN we'd have a genuine believability problem....but fortunately for us, thats not the case.

Okay, that pretty much sums it up for me. I don't, myself, see any reason to debate any of the concepts I mentioned earlier anymore -- and as another poster pointed out years ago -- you are in the "Bible Bubble". Once you get in there, it's hard to get out.

Just as I thought.

I think that this discussion has now, with Frank's guidance, moved from a philosophical discussion about Intelligent design by a universal creator to more indoctrinated rhetoric of a Judeo Christian point of view. If there is a universal creator that set the this universe and all other universe's into motion I personally doubt that IT has anything to do with any earthly religion that we have concocted to make ourselves feel better about our existential lives here on earth. I'll give this to you-the thought of something setting the universe into motion is appealing and plausible as any other theory. Good luck hunting Frank.

I suggest that we begin the Church of Frank. That way we will all know that God exists because we can actually see him,talk to him and hear his response. There will no longer be need for these long theoretical discussions. Everyone will live in peace and harmony. The study of paleontology, archeology, physics, chemistry, geology, and logic will become illegal. Frank's milescity.com writings will become our theology. Ah, bliss will finally be attainable. Can't wait.

gvc's wife

Ignorance is bliss.

Frank is a seriously happy fellow.

The Perfectly Frank Church of Saturday Saints. Not quite Pastafarianism but good enough to get by.

Consider me thoroughly chastised, and yet, I still believe what I believe, and don't believe what I don't. Thats the cool thing about religion. Or lack of it. Your faith, as long it remains yours, affects my life in no way shape or form. And my lack of belief doesn't affect you in the least little way. So just keep your beliefs out of public schools, and government buildings, and we will have no problem. But when my tax dollars are used to pay for those displays in any way at all, then we might just have to wrastle.

< I don't, myself, see any reason to debate any of the concepts I mentioned earlier anymore -- and as another poster pointed out years ago -- you are in the "Bible Bubble". Once you get in there, it's hard to get out.>

Yes I hear that a lot. Basically...its "turn up the music" and it'll all work out. For sure..if it doesn't matter...it doesn't matter.

I guess what disturbs me more than anything is how we can live in such a nonchalant state of mind. People who can live with the idea that reality is nothing than a ke sera sera experience. Living with the idea that "this time" and "this place" is all that counts seems sort of shallow. Thinking that "when yer dead yer dead" is the ultimate summation of all the laughing, tears, hard work, screw ups,honors and punishments...is, well...I guess the word that comes to mind is...futile....especially when the evidence to the contrary screams to us. That being said... I have a lot of repect for true athiesm though. If you have the guts of a Netizche or a Sarte to openly declare the "There really is nothing ultimately but the abyss of nothingness"...or that Man is nothing ultimately but a useless passion...tghen i commend you...even if you can not actually bear to live that out in real life. But of course thats just one mans' opinion.

Its a little uncomfortable...isn't it? Being asked to drop the pretense and seriously look at what IS clear to us all, I mean. Its so easy to ignore what we'd rather not admit about ourselves and pretend that "no one knows for sure". and..."Heck even if this religious stuff does happen to be true..i know I'll be in pretty good stead cuz i aint ever dun nuthin THAT bad. Lots of 'em been worse than me....right?

Truly...I mean no offense to anyone..its just that it seems to me that even a cusory look at reality proves that there is more to reality than "this time" and "this place". Thats the whole reason that i even bring up this ID stuff. Over and above the scientific data (the laws of causality, Thermodynamics, the laws of motion and even our inborn knowlege of right and wrong, and abiliy to be self aware) that are idisputable...there is more.....

I think that most here are familiar with the traditional arguments for the existence of God that i have already mentioned, at least in passing...but there is another one that comes from a little different perspective and you may not have taken the time to consider it yet. It goes like this.

I have been given innumerable blessings (lots a luck??)...and I, myself (If I am being honest) had not one thing to do with my getting them. Finding myself in possesion of these I feel an ethical responsibility (is that a cuss word?) to say....."thank you"...but to whom?? If I really am simply the product of atoms careening through a mindless universe...there is no one to express this grattitude to (guess we COULD thank the turkey at Thanksgiving)...and yet that ethical need is real....thats why most of us at least PRETEND to acknowledge the prayer.

But....the next level of the argument is where the real authority is. You see...the one who has recieved all these benefits must himself first recognize his impotence in having had the ability to acquire them. Recognizing this ought to make one drop to his knees and begin to express thanks that never ends.....and THAT is precisley what the Book says we spend our lives atempting to avoid. This argument, although perfectly logical,...can be very disturbing....and there is a definite aroma to it. For one drawn to faith in God...it is the smell of life. But for those who persist in their denial of what is clear...it is the stench of death.

What I mean is this. When we stop and consider the heavens and the earth beneath our feet most of us yawn. But...take the simplist things in reality...like say, an acorn. Have you ever stopped to consider how the acorn grows and where it gets the CO2 to make the majestic Oak tree??? The acorn is an ingenius device for making a beautiful tree...out of air!...for cryin out loud! Who ever thought of this and where can I thank him??

Wehn we see we have been granted another day of life we should be filled with thanksgiving. (more yawning I suspect). When it becomes apparent that the food is still there on the table after the Thanksgiving prayer...we ought to close our eyes and thank Him again. And just think of it...we get not only nourishment from food...but the added benefit of...taste! Lets face it...all of our food could have the flavor and consistency of ..paste. But we have been given barbecue sauce, citrus, blackened chicken, onions, sweet corn red wine...cheeseburgers with bacon...and on ad infinitum.

I mentioned it before...the wonder of human body construction, I mean. When we hold up our hands and really look at them we ought to be astonished at the engineering that went into them. (or was it a piece of carbon and lithium and silicon that decided to do something exciting one day when things were kind slow???) Seriously...what do you think it would take for a scientist/engineer to build a hand that could transfer sensations of a caress and also grow calluses for playing the guitar???...and the engineering is not limited to just one part of the body either. Consider the liver...or an ankle evolving by chance?...lets not even consider the obvious simplicity of the brains function...coordinating millions of nerve responses per second to allow us to waste time on the computer.

Language is another thing. Here I am at this keyboard...way across the country typing these words into this processing device that (so ive been told) is nothing more than beach sand and 1's and 0's. These words will be on thier way in just a few seconds via wires, electrical signals and optical cables and will soon be irritating the hell of other human beings and you will know what I was just thinking!!! Who in the world is ultimately responsible for all of this??? T'want me Mcgee. But..shouldn't we thank someone??

Then there is music (along with the rest of our simple universe..but i labor much too long already) Think of it. Music and our ability to appreciate it..well SOME of it anyway. Music as varied as food!....jazz, blues, rock, psalms...You see if i stretch a string really tight and pluck it..it vibrates soem ingeniusly constructed bones in my middle ear...and..I HEAR things!! When i hold a musical instrument in my hands..whom should I ultimately thank..the guitar maker..or the One who instilled the very ability to construct this magnificent instrument in the first place????

You see these kinds of thoughts are anything but "futile". They simply express what most of us spend out whole lives denying and supressing lest they convict us our unfathomable ingrattitude. We tell ourselves that it is OUR ability and OUR character that is to be praised and worshipped because we are so hard working, dedicated, and darn it...just good folk.

All i am doing here folks is suggesting that it is time to get real. It ought to be clear by now that at whatever level of existence we currently enjoy that we are really only the recipient of...not the uiltimate cause of. The true Being responsible for it all is powerful..and yes, terrible beyond anything we can begin to fathom. It also ought to be obvious that if you, at this moment are tempted to just "turn up the music" and ignore what truth you have just read...then you are in deep weeds. It ought to be clear that if you do NOT know who this God/Causer is... you must drop everything until you find out. He is mysterious for sure. His ways are NOT our ways...but it also ought to be clear that if you are still reading this diatribe...that He has had mercy upon you....which you certainly do not deserve...and you know it. It is not a mercy that he has given to everyone (and no ethical mandate exists saying He HAS to be mercyful to anyone). Is there ANY feeling of grattiude in yo

Imagine the right side of the brain it takes to come up with all those different snow flakes day in and day out, no two the same!

<I'll give this to you-the thought of something setting the universe into motion is appealing and plausible as any other theory.>

I think we may be missing something here. If the data means anything...we are already far beyond the plausable. ...and the part about being "appealing"...is irrelevant. Not liking the evidence has never really destroyed any of it. How much evidence do we need here?? Can we recap a little?

Lets see now...what are a few things we know for sure?

We are not God...

We didn't have anything to do with bringing reality into being.....

Reality certainly is real (at least we know there is "something" real here)

It hasn't always been here.....(at least according to the Thermodynamic data)...and it is
"winding down" in available energy for work...which means ther was a time it which is was wound fully up....

The universe has had a beginning...(that means it wasn't always here or eternal)

Not one thing has ever caused itself to be... (if we ever find such an item..all bets will be off of course!)

Gosh folks...that at least SEEMS to limit our options severely


<Good luck hunting Frank.>

The hunt's been over quite some time ago...its the conjuring up of honesty thats taken up most of my life....No...that doesn;t mean there is nothing more to learn...On the contrary..when I begin to contemplate the complexity of the simplist living cell...it tells me we mhave hardly begun to grasp what He has done. Just trying to help here....and of course luck has nothing to do with it.

<Frank's milescity.com writings will become our theology. >

REst assured these ideas are not original with me. They come from lots of question asking and yes lots of scepticism on my part. I think perhaps the one thing that has kept me from being distracted by sophomoric attempts to derail the subject is a love of logic. Although logic itself has no content...it certainly helps to keep one from accepting "something from nothing" as plausauble answers to any question.

<Consider me thoroughly chastised, and yet, I still believe what I believe, and don't believe what I don't.>

Thats fine....and please don't think I have come here to convert anyone. I couldn't do that even if I wanted to....That takes power far greater than any energy source we are familiar. If it doesn;t make sense...you'd be foolish to believe it.

<Thats the cool thing about religion. Or lack of it.>

Ok...I think perhaps we might explain something here. Religion...what is it? It may or may not have anything to do with God. (Budhism is an example) All that religion is...i mans attempt to contact or explain the infinite. There are a myriad of ways that man has tried to do that....all the while avoiding what God Himself has shown us clerarly. My point here is...Religion isn;t worth a tinkers damn if it isn't true.....no matter how "faithful" we might appear to be. Oh it may well bring some comfort psychologically...as sort of a crutch in times of dire need....but I'm talking about ultimate help....an ultimate "saving" of our being.

<they can't all be correct or true.>

I wish more folks could accept even that truth. But just watch how you get labled a "know it all" for suggesting such a thing!

< Your faith, as long it remains yours, affects my life in no way shape or form.>

Your "faith" has to be BASED upon more than conjecture, myth or happy ,neat, cute, funny, comfortable feelings, though. (not saying this is a description of YOUR faith) It HAS to be based upon what is real...because that is what ..truth is....what is REAL. Faith in the idea that killing people who snub allah wont get you lots a' virgins because its a lie and doesn't make sense...no matter how many times you are told the contrary.

< And my lack of belief doesn't affect you in the least little way.>

Of course it does affect me. We wouldn;t be dialoging if I was indifferent to what i claim is wrong thinking. I am bound to give an answer for the hope that lives within me. That only obligates ...me...not you. You, as an unbeliever are under no obligation from me. You don't want to hear it...stop replying. I wont be knocking on your door forcing you to do anything yiou really do not want to mdo.

< So just keep your beliefs out of public schools, and government buildings, and we will have no problem.>

I don't have a lot of say in that sort of thing...but I wojuldnb;t want prayer or anything to do with God in the public schools either. Saying a prayer at meals or graduations does not a Christian make...and I'd rather have folks not get the wrong idea that our public schools are anything BUT Christian. See..its that truth thingy again.

< But when my tax dollars are used to pay for those displays in any way at all, then we might just have to wrastle.>

Aw...i dunno there....I'm in pretty good shape for an old fart...you better think twice 'bout wrastlin me. Actually...You'd probably better save for money for the ACLU lawyers since they are deeply concerned that you might even hear the words Merry Chritmas again this year. Man. thats almost as important to them as defending child killers.. So much Christian influence ...so litte time...eh? Can you imagine how many people are simply brought to ruin by hearing those words??:-)))

"There are many examples though that when chaos has been claimed, its often just an excuse for an inability to understand things so complex."

s/chaos/God/

There you go Rick, fixed it for you...

I'll let Frank can get back to his question-begging now - although I think he needs to study more epistemology and less eschatology.

[This message has been edited by Bridgier (edited 10/20/2008).]

Oh Lord, I don't really have enough strength to argue some of these silly points, however I'll just use the quote Bridgier took from Rick.

> "There are many examples though that when chaos has been claimed, its often just an excuse for an inability to understand things so complex."

Without looking anything up:

#1. If you could take a snapshot of the entire Universe -- then every single atom would be at a particular location with a vector and velocity. If true, then there is no such thing as randomness or chaos or free will. Everything is predetermined and there is no way to change the outcome. Socrates debated this concept thousands of years ago.

#2. Quantum physics proves that you can NOT take a snapshot of the Universe -- so then randomness, chaos, and free will are re-instated.

If you don't believe in quantum mechanics, then I think you better inform IBM, and I don't know, perhaps Sony, and a few other places -- since they are using those ideas successfully in advanced research and development for specific purposes at this very moment.

Frank, you say faith must be based on what is real. But faith is faith because it is based on something not provable. One of the definitions in Webster's is "a firm belief in something for which there is no proof." Your faith may be real but believing something is true doesn't make it so no matter how many times or ways you say it does. Otherwise it wouldn't be faith, it would be concrete knowledge.

You also said:
I mentioned it before...the wonder of human body construction, I mean. When we hold up our hands and really look at them we ought to be astonished at the engineering that went into them.

I quite agree with you there. I went to BodyWorlds a few weeks ago. (Look it up for those of you who don't know what it is.) It gave me a new appreciation for the simultaneous complexity and simplicity of the human body. It was simply fascinating and if it ever ends up in Billings I urge all you Montana folk to go.

gvc's wife

The problem with a "God-of-the-gaps" approach (which is implicit whenever you argue that something is "just too amazing to be chance"), is that the gaps get smaller over time.

Did I miss seeing Major Pain in here?

Hi Frank, I remember you from CCHS.

Evolution = from ooze to you by way of the zoo!

Not for me, I serve an awesome God!

The problem with a "God-of-the-gaps" approach (which is implicit whenever you argue that something is "just too amazing to be chance")

Not sure I agree with that (at least in what amazingness implies) The whole argument is basically that all of existance is too amazing to be chance. Providing an example or two does not limit "amazing" to only the examples given (with 'gaps' inbetween). And mankind's ability to understand some insignificant portion does not give him the ability to know "why." We can't even tell you quite exactly how the human eye works. And we have total access to research that... Now how can it be said that we have the means to explain the origins of the universe?

Webmaster, I'm not sure I'm taking in everything you mean by the atomic map approach. But I think it's important to say that an atomic replica of our universe would likely miss some of the real deal's most significant features. Is there an atomic definition of music? Love? Does atomized Rick have the same conscience? Does he know my experiences? Does he feel them?

And even if we recorded the universe we knew about, how would we know that there isn't an even greater 'universe' outside of that we don't even realize exists? It seems rational to me to think our known 'Universe' is simply part of an even larger system beyond our comprehension.

[This message has been edited by Rick Kuchynka (edited 10/20/2008).]

<1. If you could take a snapshot of the entire Universe -- then every single atom would be at a particular location with a vector and velocity. If true, then there is no such thing as randomness or chaos or free will. Everything is predetermined and there is no way to change the outcome. Socrates debated this concept thousands of years ago.>

"If"?....If a lot of things. Speculation is for speculators. I prefer to deal in what IS known....no need for celestial cameras.

<#2. Quantum physics proves that you can NOT take a snapshot of the Universe -- so then randomness, chaos, and free will are re-instated.>

QM proves nothing of the kind. Heisenberg did indeed discover that we cannot predict the position of a given particle AND its exact trajectory...and he asssumes that means we can NEVER know anything about the behavior of even one particle much less myriads of them...but "NEVER" sounds like he has abolute knowledge and he treads pretty arrogantly here. That we can NEVER know the behavior of one particle is a strong assertion. Its not that it poses a limit to human knowledge...there is nothing new about that. Its the WHY of the limitation that has caused all the controversy. In Timothy Ferris' book.."Coming of Age in the Milky WaY"...He summarizes what the fuss is all about..


" The more closely physicists examined the subatomic world, the larger indeterminacy loomed. When a photon strikes an atom, boosting an electron into a higher orbit (I can still Dr. Hurlburt in Chemistry class!)...the electron moves from the lower to the upper orbit INSTANTANEOUSLY WITHOUT HAVING TRANSVERSED THE INTERVENING SPACE.. The orbital radaii themselves are quantized...and the electron simply ceases to exist at one point, simultaneously appearing at another. This is the famously confounding "quanum leap" and it is no mere philosophical poser; unless it is taken seriously, the behaqvior of atoms cannot be predicted accurately....Those who find such considerations nonsensical are in good company.....(p291)"

Can we think on our own for just a minute here? Can we bring logic back onstage? A mjor problem with the above. The first is the assertion that electrons moved instantaeously WITHOUT HAVING TRANSVERSED THE INTERVENING SPACE. Now THAT is a fascinating concept! Does it mean that electrons move and don't move at the same time??? Do they change positions without changing positions? Do they transverse space withoiut transversing space. It would seem to me that to ask the question would be to answer it.

I humbly ask if the electron ceases to exist altogether...how do we know it is the same electron thast simultaneoulsy appears somewhere else???? Does it exist and not exist at the same time and in the same relationship???? If so...then science is finished....because this is "something out of nothing" with a vengence. We call such things...contradictions and for a reason!! I hope you can see that.
Now i do not know what is causing that phenomenon...but I DO know that we are not witnessing something from "nothing". We must humbly bow and say...this bears further investigation. We are still being judicous sceintists to admit we simply do not have the answer to this.

Frank said, "the behaqvior of atoms cannot be predicted accurately...." Tell that to the Japanese.

<you say faith must be based on what is real. But faith is faith because it is based on something not provable.>

Yes and no. Any true Faith HAS to have a supporting basis. Faith is NOT "wishing it were so"..nor is it straight mysticism. God has never asked us to simply believe something "cuz its in the bible." The world we live in is rational because a rational God made it so. True...we do not get to see the end result at this time...but we have more than enough evidences (ID being just one) that we can believe that he is not only there but that he has the power to bring to pass all that He says He will do.....and is indeed doing at this very instant.



<You also said:
I mentioned it before...the wonder of human body construction, I mean. When we hold up our hands and really look at them we ought to be astonished at the engineering that went into them.

I quite agree with you there. I went to BodyWorlds a few weeks ago. (Look it up for those of you who don't know what it is.) It gave me a new appreciation for the simultaneous complexity and simplicity of the human body.>

I am glad you agree...now just multiply that agreement on millions of other observations available to any of us any time we care to look. With each new wonder you discover your "faith" ought to increase that these things are no accident nor chance happening. ..and if they are not caused by chance or randomness ....what other options are there....???? Did i say the evidence screams to us? Yeah, I'm just sure I did. Question is...are we listening?

Its ok to be skeptical. All searches for truth probably begin there...and As near as I can tell God has never punished anyone for asking questions.....But there comes a point we ought to begin to be skeptical of our skepticism.

<Hi Frank, I remember you from CCHS.>

Hi Salli..Yes...i remember you very well.... Seems like...well...like..over 4o years ago!! I worked for your Father at the Star too...and with your brother..(Bob?)...all through high school and J.C. What a different time that was.

<Evolution = from ooze to you by way of the zoo!

Not for me, I serve an awesome God!>

Amen to that, Salli. For some reason I have the notion that you have been a Christian for a long time?? You have been blessed! Take care...

<Frank said, "the behaqvior of atoms cannot be predicted accurately...." Tell that to the Japanese.>

Musta a been a lucky punch, huh?

Still thinking about Aliens... The Truth is out there. Again, Faith is faith. Believe in God, your god, but don't condemn other's beliefs.

Groan.

Frank, for the most part, I don't read your posts because they are so long, and you have an irritating manner of quoting previous ones with those angle brackets -- which make them harder to read. And in particular, due to the fact that you indicated you literally believe in Noah and his Ark -- which is one of the stupidest things conceivable.

How did the kangaroos hop from Australia to Noah and his Ark? What did the lions eat while on the Ark? Etc. I don't even want to get into that whole conversation again, as we did it once before, and it ended up pointless.

You are free to believe whatever you want to believe, however do not impose your beliefs on me.

Rick, and to anyone else who didn't understand my last post -- the point of bringing up the lack of randomness and free will versus randomness and free will -- well, if you don't understand that -- then you don't understand the massive and basic philosophical differences between those two options.

Science, philosophy, and religion are all intertwined to a certain degree, however this thread has apparently taken it to a new level.

I've never said I don't believe in "God", however my personal definition of "God" does not include writings by humans, who at best were only a step above cavemen, a couple thousand years ago, especially when the writings were done decades if not hundreds of years after the events.

My definition of "God" does not include any religion written by man, as it is created mostly with the intent of controlling a populous.

If I keep going I'll end up writing a book, and you know what, it's not worth the effort -- as it will never change the mind of anyone -- and if it does then I get a ticket straight to Hell.

Frank's last post:

<Frank said, "the behaqvior of atoms cannot be predicted accurately...." Tell that to the Japanese.>

Musta a been a lucky punch, huh?

What an incredible thing to say. Over two hundred thousand people were killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki by those "atoms". The vast majority were civilians - women, children and the aged, Frank. Why would someone who professes such deep religious faith say such a heinous and obscene thing? Shame on you.

gvc's wife

[This message has been edited by GVC (edited 10/20/2008).]

[This message has been edited by GVC (edited 10/20/2008).]

Rick, and to anyone else who didn't understand my last post -- the point of bringing up the lack of randomness and free will versus randomness and free will -- well, if you don't understand that -- then you don't understand the massive and basic philosophical differences between those two options.

It's not that I didn't understand what you said. It's that I didn't know completely what you were getting at. There's a few different places you could go with what you said. To be honest, this wasn't the answer I expected.

But when you say point-blank that free will requires randomness, or a created order requires no free will... that doesn't make sense to me. The Judeo-Christian option would be Order plus Free Will. An option you don't leave on the table. Some argue about predetermination, but to me, if God exists outside of time (which by definition he would've created), there's probably no such animal.

Why would someone who professes such deep religious faith say such a heinous and obscene thing? Shame on you.

Geez, GVC. I can't imagine what kind of contempt you hold for Harry S. Truman.

[This message has been edited by Rick Kuchynka (edited 10/20/2008).]

Rick, did you take philosophy in college? If so, do you remember Zeno? He had some really good paradoxes, and your arguments essentially play with them.

<Groan.

Frank, for the most part, I don't read your posts because they are so long, and you have an irritating manner of quoting previous ones with those angle brackets -- which make them harder to read.>

Hi webmaster...
Geeze its no fun being irritated, thats for sure. Thats the first time anyone has complained about that aspect of my posting. Mostly I get complaints about being mean, or knowing it all...or being a bigot...or being stupid...oooooh yes, the ole stupido complaint is usually right up there. Its your show and i'm a guest. How can i please you?


<And in particular, due to the fact that you indicated you literally believe in Noah and his Ark -- which is one of the stupidest things conceivable.>

Opinions are wonderful things aren't they? See, what did I tell ya...slipped that ole "stupid" trick right past me! Do i get any credit that as stupid as it may sound...tis still..."conceivable"?

<How did the kangaroos hop from Australia to Noah and his Ark? What did the lions eat while on the Ark? Etc. I don't even want to get into that whole conversation again, as we did it once before, and it ended up pointless.>

Well...I'm at a quandry here. Help me out, ok? You state the questions and then follow up with you don't want to talk about it cuz its pointless. Sounds to me like you have your mind pretty well locked away for safekeeping there webmaster. In passing there ARE answers to the questions...not answers that you would like probably, but there ARE answers. I'm like you though.. i hate pointless conversation.

<You are free to believe whatever you want to believe, however do not impose your beliefs on me.>

Geeze...sounds pretty ominous. But I'm in another quandry again. How can you be imposed upon if you aren't reading my posts? I got a D in mental telepathy class so i'm pretty sure that couldn't cause any imposing.


<Science, philosophy, and religion are all intertwined to a certain degree, however this thread has apparently taken it to a new level.>

Could you be more specific.....Up or down?

<I've never said I don't believe in "God",>

No need to get defensive here.

< however my personal definition of "God" does not include writings by humans,>

So....how was your "god" communicated to you?? Have you been out there on top of Yellowstone hill in your loin cloth ,cross legged and doing the ooooooom thingy?

<My definition of "God" does not include any religion written by man, as it is created mostly with the intent of controlling a populous.>

Yes lots of religion has been used for exactly that....but again...how do we get ahold of why yours is so special?

<If I keep going I'll end up writing a book,>

Yeah...we do need to exhibit a little self control here.

<and you know what, it's not worth the effort>

So i guess that means Its turn up the music time then? --

<as it will never change the mind of anyone>

Do we HAVE to change someones' mind here?
Not discussing it will accomplish about the same anyway...don't you think?


<-- and if it does then I get a ticket straight to Hell.>

Well...at least you went down knowing you had it coming, huh? Kind of like Cagney spitting out the window of his crippled bomber as he flies straight into the White cliffs of Dover....I love it!


I have a feeling my quarter has just about run out, folks. Its been interesting. Thank you for your indulgence.

<Frank said, "the behaqvior of atoms cannot be predicted accurately...." Tell that to the Japanese.>

Musta a been a lucky punch, huh?

What an incredible thing to say.>

Gosh...its so EASY to offend here!

< Over two hundred thousand people were killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki by those "atoms".>

....and that translated to how many lives being saved overall, do you think? If we had invaded most of those folks would probably had to be killed before giving up...not to mention how many of our own would have died. If THEY or Germany had gotten the bomb first...you think they would have had your attitude. War is hell or so they say. Hard to believe that sitting in our nice comfortable living rooms and plush lives....paid for in blood by our fighting men. you need to "get real"..for at least 30 minutes.

<The vast majority were civilians - women, children and the aged,>
Yes...and all willing to die for their "god" instead of turning against such insanity. Yep..ole America takes it in the shorts again. All our fault. We can't do anything right, I guess. Big bunch bullies, we are.

<Frank. Why would someone who professes such deep religious faith say such a heinous and obscene thing?>

Deep religious faith?? Me? What ever gave you that idea? I'm not a good Christian...just a Christian..warts an all.

<Shame on you.>

Yes I suppose so. I'm sure I could use some lessons in being nice, lovey and cutsey...and oh yes political correctness...lets not forget that gem....Anyway...its ok...2o or 3o years from now we wont even be sweating this stuff...take care

I'm not disputing the need to bomb Japan in WWII. I'm just disgusted by the cavalier attitude you have about the killing of a quarter million people, enemies or not. It negates any credibility you may have garnered during this discussion. I'm done.

gvc's wife

Well, heck. After figuring out, from an ID point of view, that the nuclear bomb is acceptable, I'm converting.

If faith can make you feel good about that sorta atrocity, who wouldn't want to go thru life with those blinders on?

Anyone else with me?

Where's my prayer blanket... Which direction is east? Too bad it's cloudy... but heck, science probably wouldn't be able to tell me which way the sun sets. And who knows? It's certainly a different place than yesterday....

Islam IS an acceptable route to ID, correct?

This thread is now evolving randomly.

I did. Didn't remember Zeno though. But looking at few examples of his, it looks like the kinda stuff I would've soon-after forgotten.